• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

The author of your article is the same author as NYU's article. He just so happen to work for Reagan and H. Bush. Sorry, but my article, written by a law professor, is in synch with the finding made in the Department of Justice investigation. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Are you also "not buying" the US code of laws posted?

US CODE: Title 28,541. United States attorneys
 
FWIW, that author is also a law prof. And I wasn't going to bring it up, but if we're talking bias, your prof also writes for the Huffington Post.

LOL!

You definitely have a legal basis for your assertion, and I just read: Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897), which is sited on the DOJ website addressing US Attorneys and the President's ability to fire. USAM 3-2.000 United States Attorneys, AUSAs, Special Assistants, and the AGAC

Having read this, I will accept whatever conclusion Dennehy comes to in her investigation. Seriously.
 
Lastly, NYU, tell me the following:

(1) Why you think Gonzales, Sampson, and others resigned during Congress's investigation of these firings.

(2) Why the Inspector General stated the following in his report:

In sum, we believe that the process used to remove the nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 was fundamentally flawed. While Presidential appointees can be removed for any reason or for no reason, as long as it is not an illegal or improper reason, Department officials publicly justified the removals as the result of an evaluation that sought to replace underperforming U.S. Attorneys. In fact, we determined that the process implemented largely by Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, was unsystematic and arbitrary, with little oversight by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any other senior Department official. In choosing which U.S. Attorneys to remove, Sampson did not adequately consult with the Department officials most knowledgeable about their performance, or even examine formal evaluations of each U.S. Attorney’s Office, despite his representations to the contrary.

OIG Special Report: An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006

(3) Why Mukasey referred this for an investigation if the President has the absolute authority to fire?
 
The point of that anecdote wasn't to say "Oh, well Carter got away with it, so Bush should too." It was to highlight the fact that nobody questioned Carter because it was (and remains) well settled law that the president's power to fire US Attorneys is absolute.

What happened with Carter was completely legal, despite how much it might seem improper or wrong. The same goes for the current situation.

Independent Thinker knew that you weren't making that point...this is his M.O., though...taking clear, plainly worded statements and cortorting them into wild positions that never could have reasonable distilled from the original comment.

Those whining and carping about Bush here cannot offer any reasonable explanation regarding the Carter situation because the current situation is motivated purely and only by political grievance and not by an interest in determining the proper exercise of political power.
 
The author of your article is the same author as NYU's article. He just so happen to work for Reagan and H. Bush. Sorry, but my article, written by a law professor, is in synch with the finding made in the Department of Justice investigation. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Oh, come on...if you cannot present a reasonable counter-argument to it don't whine about who the author is. All you're doing is a) shooting the messenger; and b) relying on your own appeal to an authority you prefer to appeal to because it fits well with your preferred narrative here.
 
I am buying the US Code. Where does it say,

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President for any proper or improper reason.

???

It doesn't, and that is exactly the point. It's a broadly written law that gives no caveats to reasoning for the removal from office. In light of that, everything goes.
 
It doesn't, and that is exactly the point. It's a broadly written law that gives no caveats to reasoning for the removal from office. In light of that, everything goes.

Of course, Phoenix! That's why the Inspector General of the Department of Justice determined that this should be further investigated and why Mukasey referred it for an investigation. :roll:
 
Oh, come on...if you cannot present a reasonable counter-argument to it don't whine about who the author is. All you're doing is a) shooting the messenger; and b) relying on your own appeal to an authority you prefer to appeal to because it fits well with your preferred narrative here.

I explained in another post why I was relying on the actual report from the Department of Justice AND the article I posted, since they both came to the same conclusion. :roll:
 
I explained in another post why I was relying on the actual report from the Department of Justice AND the article I posted, since they both came to the same conclusion. :roll:

Miss the point much?

You attacked the author rather than the argument because that author was associated with people you dislike. That's not a logical argument. That's what I was criticizing.

I'm not sure how you missed something as obvious as that.

Why did you think that I was attacking why you believe what you do about this issue when I was clearly criticizing your attempt to shoot the messenger?

Well?
 
Miss the point much?

You attacked the author rather than the argument because that author was associated with people you dislike. That's not a logical argument. That's what I was criticizing.

I'm not sure how you missed something as obvious as that.

Why did you think that I was attacking why you believe what you do about this issue when I was clearly criticizing your attempt to shoot the messenger?

Well?

Excuse me? I can attack the content of the article when I believe it is tainted by the author's partisanship, and when I provided evidence that stated otherwise. It's called weighing the evidence. You don't have to like my reasoning, and if you don't, I don't care. *yawn*
 
Excuse me? I can attack the content of the article when I believe it is tainted by the author's partisanship, and when I provided evidence that stated otherwise. It's called weighing the evidence. You don't have to like my reasoning, and if you don't, I don't care. *yawn*

It's not whether I like your reasoning or not. I merely pointed out, correctly, that you were engaged in presenting a logical fallacy, i.e., attacking the messenger rather than the messenger's argument.

And, lets be clear, you didn't attack the article whatsoever whether it was to challenge its logical argument(s) or to reveal how it was tainted by some ideological bias.

You didn't weigh anything. You simply attributed a political bias to the author and then dismissed the article.

In other words, you simply said, my guy is a law prof so he's more right then your guy because your guy is associated with Bush.

You're fooling no one and your dishonesty is now stinking up the thread.
 
Okay, so here a portion of Mukasey's statement when he appointed the special prosecutor (the entire statement is in the link):

“The Offices of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility dispelled many of the most disturbing allegations made in the wake of the removals. However, the Report makes plain that, at a minimum, the process by which nine U.S. Attorneys were removed in 2006 was haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and that the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking. It is true, as the report acknowledges, that an Administration is entitled to remove presidential appointees, including U.S. Attorneys, for virtually any reason or no reason at all. But the leaders of the Department owed it to those who served the country in those capacities to treat their careers and reputations with appropriate care and dignity. And the leaders of the Department owed it to the American people they served to conduct the public's business in a deliberate and professional manner. The Department failed on both scores.

“The Report leaves some important questions unanswered and recommends that I appoint an attorney to assess the facts uncovered, to conduct further investigation as needed, and ultimately to determine whether any prosecutable offense was committed with regard to the removal of a U.S. Attorney or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals. . . .

#08-859: Statement by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on the Report of an Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 (2008-09-29)

This clears up things for me. He definitely states that the president can fire for no cause or any cause. However, he notes that the process was done improperly.

I believe if anything comes out of this investigation (a criminal offense), it will be based upon the testimony provided by the DOJ employees (as lying before Congress is a criminal offense). JMO
 
What Mukasey did is called trying to compromise. It was a blunder. Mukasey properly recognizes that there are no constraints on the President's authority to dismiss US Attorney's, yet, holds out an olive branch as a sign of respect.

Result: Democrats and liberals drolling all over themselves in anticipation of criminal charges.

The funny thing is that the only criminal charges that could be brought would be lying to Congress. Ironic when members of Congress lie on a daily basis, but nonetheless, lying to Congress is a crime.

Consequence: Democrats and liberals pounding the table exclaiming, "See, those evil Bush people, they corrupted the DoJ."

Republicans often act this foolishly when they attempt, in good faith, to strike compromise. Democrats and liberals...take advantage of that good faith.

See, too, the administration's backpedaling on the British intelligence Niger SOTU fiasco. No reason to back-off, but they did to appease Democrats. Instead, Democrats took a pound when given an ounce. Par for the course.
 
What Mukasey did is called trying to compromise. It was a blunder. Mukasey properly recognizes that there are no constraints on the President's authority to dismiss US Attorney's, yet, holds out an olive branch as a sign of respect.

Result: Democrats and liberals drolling all over themselves in anticipation of criminal charges.

The funny thing is that the only criminal charges that could be brought would be lying to Congress. Ironic when members of Congress lie on a daily basis, but nonetheless, lying to Congress is a crime.

Consequence: Democrats and liberals pounding the table exclaiming, "See, those evil Bush people, they corrupted the DoJ."

Republicans often act this foolishly when they attempt, in good faith, to strike compromise. Democrats and liberals...take advantage of that good faith.

See, too, the administration's backpedaling on the British intelligence Niger SOTU fiasco. No reason to back-off, but they did to appease Democrats. Instead, Democrats took a pound when given an ounce. Par for the course.

Sigh. Nothing the Republicans do ever amounts to anything illegal for you. You have ZERO credibility with me anymore, and I won't respond to your partisan hatredness anymore. Good luck to you.
 
Seems like TD, Phoenix and JMak would be perfectly okay with this.

I bet they'd be ok with witch hunting the Repubs that didn't vote for the stimulus bill. That a show em.

What a patently absurd thing to suggest; where have the three of us suggested we want our political opponents jailed? Oh yeah, we didn't. This is just more of the typical hyperbolic blather Liberals are known to use to support their weak positions that the facts and truth cannot substantiate for them.

Carry on. :roll:
 
Independent Thinker knew that you weren't making that point...this is his M.O., though...taking clear, plainly worded statements and cortorting them into wild positions that never could have reasonable distilled from the original comment.

That hasn't been my experience with IT at all.

Okay, so here a portion of Mukasey's statement when he appointed the special prosecutor (the entire statement is in the link):

This clears up things for me. He definitely states that the president can fire for no cause or any cause. However, he notes that the process was done improperly.

I believe if anything comes out of this investigation (a criminal offense), it will be based upon the testimony provided by the DOJ employees (as lying before Congress is a criminal offense). JMO

I agree that this was handled very poorly, and I do feel bad for the USA's who had their reputations tarnished. I also agree that there could be charges based on testimony to Congress, but I still don't see why anyone should have been called before Congress at all.
 
Sigh. Nothing the Republicans do ever amounts to anything illegal for you. You have ZERO credibility with me anymore, and I won't respond to your partisan hatredness anymore. Good luck to you.

As opposed to your hyper-partisan hyperbole that desperately tries to suggest that everything the Republicans do IS illegal?

How trite and simplistic. Then to compound the fact that you were owned, you claim hatredness (I love these made up words) and run away crying.

Good lord, you are the poster child of the gullible left. :roll:
 
That hasn't been my experience with IT at all.

Well, it's been mine and I was just pointing out another example.

I agree that this was handled very poorly, and I do feel bad for the USA's who had their reputations tarnished. I also agree that there could be charges based on testimony to Congress, but I still don't see why anyone should have been called before Congress at all.

Politics. Period. I mean, this is what we're talking about. I'm not sure why people are either so appalled by the investigations or gleeful about the potential of investigations and, yet, just cannot call it what it is...politics.

I mean, wtf?
 
The point of that anecdote wasn't to say "Oh, well Carter got away with it, so Bush should too." It was to highlight the fact that nobody questioned Carter because it was (and remains) well settled law that the president's power to fire US Attorneys is absolute.

What happened with Carter was completely legal, despite how much it might seem improper or wrong. The same goes for the current situation.

What an absolutely absurd argument! Do you use that same logic to state that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, that that proves it doesn’t make any noise. Oi vey! :roll:

You guys are intentionally making this about the actual act of “firings” when you know full well that...
THAT is not the issue.

The issue is about whether the administration attempted to force those AGs to conduct their offices with politics in mind. THAT is illegal!

If this happened under Carter then it too was illegal. Just because no legal action was taken only proves one thing... that no legal action was taken! Period! :doh If I go faster than the speed limit and pass by a cop but, he doesn't pull me over and issue me a ticket ... THAT does NOT mean that I did NOT break the law! Wow! :roll:

And, as I also pointed out, it is against “the rules” for Congressmen and women to contact AGs about “ANY” investigations. To do so may result in “obstructing justice” accusations. That’s sort of serious stuff! Just ask that treasonist liar Scooter Libby.

For someone who accuses others of "running away" from issues you're doing a nice job of it yourself now! :2wave:
 
What an absolutely absurd argument! Do you use that same logic to state that if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, that that proves it doesn’t make any noise. Oi vey! :roll:

Yes, that's exactly the logic I'm using.

You guys are intentionally making this about the actual act of “firings” when you know full well that...
THAT is not the issue.

The issue is about whether the administration attempted to force those AGs to conduct their offices with politics in mind. THAT is illegal!


If this happened under Carter then it too was illegal. Just because no legal action was taken only proves one thing... that no legal action was taken! Period! :doh If I go faster than the speed limit and pass by a cop but, he doesn't pull me over and issue me a ticket ... THAT does NOT mean that I did NOT break the law! Wow! :roll:

Reread the last 20 posts. Go ahead. I'll wait.


And, as I also pointed out, it is against “the rules” for Congressmen and women to contact AGs about “ANY” investigations.

Link to these "rules"?

To do so may result in “obstructing justice” accusations.

You're completely right that it may result in "obstructing justice accusations." Fortunately, accusations don't mean anything.

That’s sort of serious stuff! Just ask that treasonist liar Scooter Libby.

OMG you're right, the two situations are identical!

For someone who accuses others of "running away" from issues you're doing a nice job of it yourself now! :2wave:

It's less "running away" and more "backing away slowly"
 
The point of that anecdote wasn't to say "Oh, well Carter got away with it, so Bush should too." It was to highlight the fact that nobody questioned Carter because it was (and remains) well settled law that the president's power to fire US Attorneys is absolute.

What happened with Carter was completely legal, despite how much it might seem improper or wrong. The same goes for the current situation.

Someone should have investigated the legal situation and made a law about it. It's unchecked power.
 
Well, it's been mine and I was just pointing out another example.

How do you think people describe their experience with you?
 
Yes, that's exactly the logic I'm using.

Enuff said.

Reread the last 20 posts. Go ahead. I'll wait.

No thanks. If you can't read direct replies to your posts, I won't waste any more of my time with yours.

Link to these "rules"?

If you had read my post you would have seen it.

You're completely right that it may result in "obstructing justice accusations." Fortunately, accusations don't mean anything.

It boggles the mind how obtuse you are.

OMG you're right, the two situations are identical!

Did I say the situations were identical?

It's less "running away" and more "backing away slowly"

No, it's more of ignoring any argument that doesn't agree with your spins. :roll: You have no problem belittling others when you "assume" they haven't read your posts to inform themselves of your position. But, you don't even come close to holding yourself to the same standard.
 
Enuff said.

Sarcasm: You fail it.

No thanks. If you can't read direct replies to your posts, I won't waste any more of my time with yours.

If you had read my post you would have seen it.

It boggles the mind how obtuse you are.

Look, it's incredibly obvious that you're out of your element. If you read the above posts, you will see very clearly that nothing that happened was against the law, save possibly the perjury allegations, if true. If you don't understand the law, don't try to tell everyone what it means. If you don't understand what legal words mean, don't use them. The fact that you don't understand this is not an indication that the rest of us are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom